MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3188226081 · doi:10.1016/j.anpedi.2021.05.019

COVID-19 en pediatría: valoración crítica de la evidencia

2021· article· es· W3188226081 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Paz González Rodríguez, Begoña Pérez‐Moneo, María Salomé Albi Rodríguez, Pilar Aizpurúa Galdeano, María Aparicio Rodrigo, María Mercedes Fernández Rodríguez, María Jesús Esparza Olcina, Carlos Ochoa Sangrador

Bibliographic record

VenueAnales de Pediatría · 2021
Typearticle
Languagees
FieldMedicine
TopicCOVID-19 Clinical Research Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCritical appraisalCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)Evidence-based medicinePsychologyMEDLINEQuality of evidenceEquity (law)MedicineMeta-analysisOutcome (game theory)EpidemiologyFamily medicineAlternative medicinePolitical sciencePathologyEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Presentamos el resumen de un documento de valoración crítica de la evidencia disponible sobre la COVID-19, elaborado con formato de guía de práctica clínica siguiendo la metodología GRADE. El documento trata de dar respuestas a una serie de preguntas clínicas estructuradas, con definición explícita de la población, intervención/exposición, comparación y resultado, y una jerarquización de la importancia clínica de las medidas de efecto valoradas. Realizamos revisiones sistemáticas de la literatura para responder a las preguntas, agrupadas en 6 capítulos: epidemiología, clínica, diagnóstico, tratamiento, prevención y vacunas. Valoramos el riesgo de sesgo de los estudios seleccionados con instrumentos estándar (RoB-2, ROBINS-I, QUADAS y Newcastle-Ottawa). Elaboramos tablas de evidencia y, cuando fue necesario y posible, metaanálisis de las principales medidas de efecto. Seguimos el sistema GRADE para realizar síntesis de la evidencia, con valoración de su calidad y, cuando se consideró apropiado, emitir recomendaciones jerarquizadas en función de la calidad de la evidencia, los valores y preferencias, el balance entre beneficios, riesgos y costes, la equidad y la factibilidad. We present the summary of a critical appraisal document of the available evidence on COVID-19, developed with a clinical practice guide format following GRADE methodology. The document tries to provide answers to a series of structured clinical questions, with an explicit definition of the population, intervention/exposure, comparison and outcome, and a rating of the clinical relevance of the outcome measures. We conducted a systematic review of the literature to answer the questions, grouped into six chapters: epidemiology, clinical practice, diagnosis, treatment, prevention, and vaccination. We assessed the risk of bias of the selected studies with standard instruments (RoB-2, ROBINS-I, QUADAS and Newcastle-Ottawa). We constructed evidence tables and, when necessary and possible, meta-analysis of the of the most relevant outcome measures. We followed the GRADE system to synthesize the evidence, assessing its quality, and, when appropriate, giving recommendations, rated according to the quality of the evidence, the values and preferences, the balance between benefits, risks and costs, equity and feasibility.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.410
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.496
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.410
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.044
GPT teacher head0.466
Teacher spread0.422 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations13
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnales de PediatríaSame topicCOVID-19 Clinical Research StudiesFrench-language works237,207